Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

Academics Raise Concerns About UK Covid-19 Inquiry

Published

7 minute read

From the Brownstone Institute

BY  

 

Over 50 prominent UK academics have signed an open letter to Baroness Heather Hallett, chair of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, calling for urgent action to address the shortcomings of the probe so far. The signatories of the letter say the Hallett Inquiry suffers from bias, false assumptions, and a lack of impartiality.

“The Covid Inquiry is not living up to its mission to evaluate the mistakes made during the pandemic, whether Covid measures were appropriate, and to prepare the country for the next pandemic,” they write.

Kevin Bardosh, lead signatory and Director of Collateral Global has been following the Inquiry closely. He’s concerned it has focused too much on “who said what and when,” rather than homing in on key scientific questions about the evidence (or lack thereof) underpinning policy decisions.

Prof Kevin Bardosh, Director of Collateral Global. Photo credit: Shutterstock

“The Inquiry was pre-designed on the assumption that the government ‘didn’t do enough’ to protect people during the pandemic,” says Bardosh. “But the thing about the pandemic is that more measures, didn’t mean more lives saved. It’s a paradoxical aspect of health policy that more doesn’t necessarily mean better.”

Bardosh, who is affiliated with University of Edinburgh Medical School, says because the Inquiry’s starting position is that non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. masks) and lockdowns were necessary and effective, it’s not actually interrogating the trade-offs of these policies.

“If you go back to pre-Covid, policies like lockdowns, extended school closures, and contact tracing for a respiratory virus, were not the ‘scientific consensus’ for how to respond rationally to a pandemic,” he says. “In fact, the reverse was true. The goal was to minimise the disruption to society because it would have all these short and long-term unintended consequences.”

In December 2023, when Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was questioned at the Inquiry, he admitted the UK government had failed to discuss the costs and benefits of pandemic policies.

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunk questioned at UK Covid Inquiry

Sunak pointed to a peer-reviewed report by Imperial College London and the University of Manchester that applied a Quality-Adjusted Life Year analysis to the first lockdown in the UK and found “for every permutation of lives saved and GDP lost, the costs of lockdown exceed the benefits.” [emphasis added]

Bardosh has also called out the Inquiry for its double standards in scrutinising experts.

Take for example, Neil Ferguson, professor at Imperial College and former SAGE member. He was the architect behind lockdowns after his March 2020 models warned that 500,000 Brits would die unless tougher restrictions were put in place to curb spread of the virus.

Bardosh says, “The Inquiry hasn’t really questioned Ferguson’s mathematical model in any substantial way. But if you compare that to the questioning of Professor Carl Heneghan, who’s based out of Oxford, it was very confrontational, and they used provocative language to suggest he didn’t have expertise in this area.”

Heneghan, the director of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, was among 32 senior UK academics who urged then-Prime Minister, Boris Johnson to think twice about plunging Britain into a second lockdown in the autumn of 2020.

It was revealed during evidence to the Inquiry, that the UK’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Dame Angela McLean, called Heneghan a “fuckwit” on a WhatsApp chat during a September 2020 Government meeting for his dissenting views on lockdowns.

Prof Carl Heneghan, director of Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford

Later, Heneghan penned a scathing article in The Spectator, calling the Inquiry a “farce – a spectacle of hysteria, name-calling and trivialities.”

“Lockdown was the most disruptive policy in British peacetime history, with huge ramifications for our health, children’s education and the economy,” wrote Heneghan.

“This is an opportunity for the inquiry to gather evidence and ask whether lockdown and other interventions actually worked…Instead we have a KC [King’s Counsel] who seems uninterested in substance and obsessed with reading out rude words he has found in other people’s private messages.”

Bardosh and the other signatories have also raised concerns about the structure of the scientific advisory groups in the Inquiry, which have omitted key experts in child development, schooling impacts, social, and economic policy.

“The Inquiry must invite a much broader range of scientific experts with more critical viewpoints. It must also review the evidence on diverse topics so that it can be fully informed of relevant science and the economic and social cost of Covid policies to British society,” write the signatories.

So far, Bardosh is unimpressed with the ‘political theatre’ of the Inquiry, but hopes Baroness Hallett will urgently address its shortcomings to avoid compromising the credibility of future public inquiries.

“Not having an inquiry that really asks those questions is very damaging to the idea of accountability. We need to hold to account the policy decisions that were made because if we don’t, the next time there’s a public health emergency, these measures will come back into place whether or not they actually work,” says Bardosh.

The Hallett Inquiry is slated to run until 2026 and is reported to be one of the largest public inquiries in UK history. The cost of the UK government’s Covid measures are estimated to be between £310bn and £410bn.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

  • Maryanne Demasi

    Maryanne Demasi, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, is an investigative medical reporter with a PhD in rheumatology, who writes for online media and top tiered medical journals. For over a decade, she produced TV documentaries for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and has worked as a speechwriter and political advisor for the South Australian Science Minister.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

US Government ADMITS It Approved Pfizer’s COVID “Vaccine” Despite Knowing About a Long List of Trial Violations

Published on

 The Vigilant Fox

The US government just admitted something shocking.

They KNEW Pfizer’s COVID “vaccine” trials were a complete sham back in 2020.

But they didn’t pursue fraud because exposing it would blow up the very health policy they’re still clinging to today.

This revelation comes from the whistleblower case of Brook Jackson, a former regional director at Ventavia, the company that ran Pfizer’s clinical trials.

In 2021, Jackson filed a lawsuit under the False Claims Act, alleging that Pfizer, Ventavia, and others committed fraud by falsifying data and violating clinical trial protocols.

And now, the government refuses to investigate further—because doing so would expose that they knowingly pushed a harmful product onto the American people.

We’ll show you the court filings with Brook Jackson in this report.

Here’s what Brook Jackson witnessed firsthand.

As regional director at Ventavia, the company running Pfizer’s vaccine trial sites, Jackson said the entire operation was riddled with serious violations. She saw falsified data, trial participants who were unblinded, staff who were poorly trained, and vaccines that were improperly stored.

Worse, she claimed the company FAILED to follow up on adverse events, including serious, potentially life-threatening ones—which recklessly endangered patients and destroyed the integrity of the entire trial.

“We were so inundated with the number of adverse events that we could not keep up,” she said. Pfizer even called asking what the plan was to handle the flood of safety reports.

She said patients weren’t even given full informed consent—her “number one concern.”

Jackson reported these issues to Ventavia. When nothing changed, she went to the FDA.

Six hours later, she was fired. The reason? “I was not a good fit,” she said. “I was not a good fit for reporting fraudulent conduct in a clinical trial.”

Jackson worked at Ventavia for just 18 days but says that’s all it took to get a grasp of the fraud she witnessed.

The court documents reveal a disturbing admission: the government KNEW about ALL the previously listed issues before granting Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer’s COVID shot.

“The FDA was aware of the protocol violations allegedly witnessed by relator BEFORE it granted Pfizer emergency use authorization for its vaccine.”

That’s the quote from page 19 of the court documents.

The “Relator” they’re referring to is Brook Jackson.

If Jackson’s allegations were true, it would completely undermine the trial’s integrity.

So what did the FDA do with that knowledge?

According to Jackson, nothing.

“I called them. I filed a report. Did they investigate the allegations I was making? The answer is no,” she said.

In a second slap in the face to the American people, the government claimed they moved forward with the COVID shots because they had “continued access” to Pfizer’s vaccine clinical trial data.

That’s the same data the FDA tried to hide for 75 years.

Now that it’s been forced into the light, we know exactly what they were trying to cover up—data showing:

• Heart damage in young people

• A massive volume of adverse events

• Biodistribution to vital organs and dangerous accumulation

• Reproductive harm affecting fertility and pregnancy outcomes

• Deaths and severe injuries linked directly to the shot

• COVID-19 listed as a side effect

• Complete failure to stop transmission

• And much, much more.

(Credit to Naomi Wolf, Amy Kelly, and the DailyClout/Bannon War Room volunteers for these discoveries)

They had access to it all. And they pushed the shots anyway.

The most disturbing admission of all comes in the third point of the case.

The court filing states:

“The government further explained that discovery and litigation obligations associated with the case would place significant burdens on FDA, HHS, and the Department of Justice and that the government should not be required to bear such burdens on a case ‘inconsistent with its health policy.’”

In plain English: the government didn’t want to investigate Pfizer, not because the fraud claims lacked merit, but because digging deeper would conflict with its official narrative that the COVID shots are “effective.”

That’s the health policy they’re clinging to.

And they’d rather bury anything that threatens to expose flaws, fraud, or harm from these shots than face the fallout of their own actions.

Jackson emphasized that her lawsuit is about one thing: fraud.

She questioned how exposing fraud could possibly go against public health policy, especially when that policy has never even been clearly defined.

“These were our taxpayer dollars used to fund their experiments,” Jackson said, adding, “these [COVID shots] are not safe or effective products. They’re contaminated, they’re dangerous, and they need to be stopped immediately.”

She called for a full recall, congressional investigations, and accountability for the dangerous experiment that’s been carried out on the American people.

“Fraud should not be allowed to be a part of a clinical trial. Period.”


Thanks for reading.

Subscribe to this page for more COVID reports and stories that matter.

Watch the full conversation with Brook Jackson and Maria Zeee below.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Tulsi Gabbard says US funded ‘gain-of-function’ research at Wuhan lab at heart of COVID ‘leak’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Conservative Treehouse

The director of National Intelligence revealed gain-of-function ties to US funding, which could indicate that the US helped bankroll the supposed COVID lab leak.

In this segment of a remarkable interview by Megyn Kelly, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard discusses the current Intelligence Community (IC) research into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (aka, COVID-19).

Gabbard talks about the U.S. government funding of “gain-of-function” research, which is a soft sounding phrase to describe the weaponization of biological agents.

Gabbard notes the gain-of-function research taking place in the Wuhan lab was coordinated and funded by the United States government, and the IC is close to making a direct link between the research and the release of the COVID-19 virus.

Additionally, Gabbard explains the concern of other biolabs around the world and then gets very close to the line of admitting the IC itself is politically weaponized (which it is but would be stunning to admit).

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X